SUPREME COURT.

Globe, Volume IV, Issue 411, 6 October 1875, Page 2

SUPREME COURT.

CRIMINAL SITTINGS. Tuesday, October 5. [Before his Honour Mr Justice Johnston.] PRESENTMENT. The foreman of the Grand Jury handed in the following presentment on the part of the Grand Jury:— Supreme Court Buildings, ChristChurch; Oct. sth, 1875. Your Honor—We, the Grand Jury assembled at the present sitting of the Circuit Court of the Canterbury District, welcome your Honor to the judicial charge of the district. While heartily joining with your Honor in bearing testimony to the general feelings of respect, sympathy, and gratitude, which follow Mr Gresson to his honorable retirement, and which he so fully deserves, we think it a matter for general congratulation that a gentleman possessing the high position on the Bench of the colony which your Honor has so long occupied should have been selected as his successor.

We thank your Honor for your Honor's remarks relating to the defective state of the penal system in the colony, and concur in the opinion that the improvements which your Honor has so often advocated imperatively demand the attention of the Legislature. Josiah Birch, Foreman of the Grand Jury. His Honor—Mr Foreman and Gentlemen of the Grand Jury : I thank you very sincerely for the kindly expressions of welcome which you have expressed towards me, and so far as I am personally concerned I trust that the respect and sympathy which have been expressed by you will a,ways continue. Regarding the remarks I felt it my duty to make respecting the penal syßtem prevailing in the colony, I am glad to find that so influential a body of gentlemen as the Grand Jury of this judicial district concur with me in vny remarks on this subject, and I shall feel it my duty to forward that portion of the presentment to his Excellency's Government. Gentlemen, amongst the very important functions of the Grand Jury, I recognise none more so than the strengthening of the hands of those to whom the administration of the affairs of the country is entrusted by the expression of their opinion on subjects such as this, of great public importance. Gentlemen, I have now pleasure in discharging you from further attendance, with the thanks of the Queen and the colony for your services.

The Grand Jury were then discharged. TRUE BILLS.

During the day the Grand Jury retrrned true bills in the following cases:—Regina v Anderson, alias Williams, obtaining goods by false pretences ; Regina v Mullin, breach of the Pawnbrokers' Act; Regina v Gecrge Barrett, forgery of a request to deliver certain timber ; Regina v C. W,

embezzlement (Canterbury Club cases) ; Regina v William Jackson, sheep stealing. LARCENY AS A BAILEE. Thomas Coyne was indicted for having on the 18th June stolen a mare, saddle, and and bridle, the property of Catherine Fraser. The prisoner, who was defended by Dr Foster, pleaded " Not Guilty. ' Mr Duncan prosecuted ,on behalf of the Crown. Mr T. R. Fisher was foreman of the petty jury. The facts of the case as disclosed in evidence were as follows:—The prisoner, who had been in the employ of Fraser and Brown, saw-millers at Little Akaloa, borrowed the mare in question from Mrs Fraser to proceed to the Maori kaik, promising to return it on the following Tuesday. He rode away with the mare, and subsequently sold the mare to a man named Gibbons, at the Head of the Bay, for £5 10s. The prisoner told Gibbons that Fraser and Brown were going through the Oourt, and that he had got the mare for his wages. The police having been informed of the non-return of the mare, traced the sale as stated, and ultimately recovered it. Evidence having been led by the Crown, Dr Foster addressed the jury for the defence. Mr Duncan having replied, His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a lengthened consultation, returned a verdict of "Guilty." His Honor sentenced the prisoner to two years' imprisonment with hard labour. POSTPONEMENT. Mr Joynt, in Regina v Mullins, applied to his Honor to postpone this case, fixed for trial this session, in consequence of a material witness for the defence having broken his leg, and being unable to attend. Mr Dnncan, on the part of the Crown, objected to the postponement, as, if granted, he believed the ends of justice would be frustrated by the prosecutor, who was a seafaring man, leaving the province. His Honor said that Mr Joynt could help him very materially if he could give him an affidavit, the evidence which the witness could give, so that he could see if it were material or not. Mr Joynt could not see his way clear to do this, as the affidavit would at once become the property of the Crown prosecutor, and thus he would learn the line of defence. His Honor said he would look into the depositions before saying more on the subject. After some argument, Mr Joynt undertook to submit an affidavit from the witness setting forth his evidence. FORGERY OF A REQUEST. George Barrett was indicted for having on the 3rd Ju'y forged a request to one John Thomson Brown for the delivery of certain timber, and also with having put off the same knowing it to be forged. The pi isoner, who was undefended, pleaded " Not Guilty." M. T. R. Fisher was foreman of the petty jury. The case for the Crown was shortly as follows :—On the 3rd July last the prisoner, who is a carter in Christchurch, received from one Hofmeister,on behalf ofJPhilipTisch, a request to one John Thomson Brown, timber merchant, to deliver to the prisoner for Hofmeistar a quantity of timber, including 100 ft match lining and 300 ft flooring boards, which he was instructed to cart to Hofmeister's house on Aikman's road. Between the time of the delivery of the request to prisoner and its presentation at Brown's timber yard, it had been altered by the making one of the ciphers in each of the quantities ordered into a figure nine, so that 100 ft was altered to 190 ft and 300 ft to 390 ft. The order so altered was presented by the prisoner, and he received the quantity so stated in the request, On the prisonei reaching Hofmeister's house, the former delivered a smaller quantity than had been delivered by the latter. He immediately went to Brown's timber yard to enquire, and there was shown the altered request. Information was then given to the police, who traced some timber of a similar character to the prisoner's house. He (the prisoner) was building a new house at the time, and Mr Brown identified the timber found there as a portion of the timber delivered to prisoner by him in compliance with Hofmeister's request. Evidence was led in support of these facts. His Honor summed up, and the jury, after a short consultation, returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor asked the prisoner whether lie had any witnesses to character. Inspector Feast deposed to having known the prisoner for about eighteen months. He knew nothing against him. His Honor said that the testimony of so efficient an officer as Inspector Feast that he knew nothing against the prisoner was almost equal to testimony to good character. The prisoner would be sentenced to two yeara' imprisonment with hard labor. ILLEGALLY PAWNING. W Israel Luke was indicted for having on the 15th July illegally pawned with one Samuel Stewart a watch and chain, the property of one James McConuochie. The prisoner, who was undefended, pleaded "Not Guilty." The facts of the case were exceedingly simple. The prosecutor, in the month of April laßt, was in the Ashburton district, where the prisoner also was, and the latter took the watch from him while he was drunk. The prosecutor never saw the watch again until July, when he saw it in the Magistrate's Court. On April 19th the prisoner met the prosecutor, and he told him that he had pawned it, but would get it out in a day or two. The prosecutor, however, never saw either the watch or the prisoner again, until he met him in the Magistrate 8 Court, in July. The jury returned a verdict of " Guilty." His Honor sentenced the prisoner to imprisonment for nine calendar months with hard labor. The Court adjourned at 6.10 p.m. to 10 a.m. this day. Wednesday, October 6. [Before his Honor Mr Justice Johnston.] ' The Court reopened at 10 a.m. pleas. The following prisoners pleaded in the varioui cases: — Regina v C. W.Worger, embezzlement (four cases)—Plea, Not guilty. Regina v George Messiter, altering a receipt—Plea, Not guilty. obtaining goods under false pretences. John Anderson, alias Williams, was indicted for having on the 7th July fraudulently obtained from one Charles Kiver junior, 1000 sacks and quantity of twine by pretending that he was a farmer at the Aehburton.

The prisoner pleaded " Not guilty."

Mr Duncan prosecuted od l '<■'■-• I * <>f H <■ Crown, and Mr Joynt appeared for the defence.

Mr F. H. Taylor was foreman of ihe p :tty jury. The facts of the case as detailed in evi dence were as follows :—On the date named in the indictment the prisoner went to Mr Charles Kiver, junr., and stated that he was a farmer at the Ashburton, and that he required some sacks for the grain which he said he would store with Mr Kiver for sale on commission. After consultation with Mr Kiver, the prisoner obtained from him 1000 Backs and a quantity of twine, on the pretence of wanting them to fill with grain for consignment to Mr Kiver, and the representation that he had a large farm on the Ashburton. The sacks were duly delivered to prisoner, but no grain coming forward, information was given to the police, and it was then found that the prisoner had shipped the sacks per Easby to Newcastle on his own account.

Evidence was led by the Crown. In Mr Kiver's evidence, he stated that but for the prisoner stating that he was a freeholder at the Ashburton, he would not let him have the sacks. His Honor said that this was not in the indictment or in the original depositions, hence the indictment could not be sustained.

The jury under direction of His Honor returned a verdict of " Not Guilty." His Honor commented strongly on the loose method of dealing in business exhibited in this case, in which the prosecutor had at once, and without making any enquiries, allowed the prisoner to get 1000 sacks, a most impudent iraud had been committed, but it Bhowed how extremely gullible some people were. The prisoner would be discharged upon a technical point. The prisoner was then discharged. UTTERING A RECEIPT.

George Messiter was indicted for having on the 22nd, July, 1875, altered a receipt for £lO given by one Thomas Merson to his wife in 1872.

The prisoner pleaded " Not Guilty." Mr Duncan prosecuted on behalf of the Crown.

Mr Joynt appeared for the prisoner. The facts are as follows :—The prisoner for some years had dealings with one Thomas Merson, a storekeeper in Lyttelton, and had occasion to pay certain sums of money to him, obtaining receipts for the same. On 31st December, 1872, Mrs Measiter, the wife of priHoner, came to Merson and paid £lO on account, taking a receipt for it. Mrs Messiter died in Jauuaryof 1874, and Merson sued prisoner in the Resident Magistrates Court, Lyttelton, foi £l6 odd, balance of account due to him by Mrs Messiter. A receipt was produced by the prisoner, dated December 31st, 1874, which was recognised by the prosecutor as the one given to him by Mrs Messiter in 1872. {"Left sitting.]